Joanna v Abayaa and Another (A2/23/2024) [2025] GHADC 237 (1 May 2025)

INTHE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE COURTHELD AT BEREKUMONWEDNESDAY DAY OF MAY, 2025. BFFORE HIS WHORSHIP AUGUSTINE AKUSA-AM (DISTRICTMAGISTRATE SUITNO. A2/23/2024 SERWAAJOANNA PLAINTIFF OFH/NO. BB-0152-9684-MAGAZINE VRS 1. ADWOAABAYAA DEFENDANTS 2. NILL NORTEY ALL OFNSOATRE ======================================================= PLAINTIFF–PRESENT 1ST DEFENDANT –PRESENT 2NDDEFENDANT –ABSENT 1|Page The plaintiff claims against the defendants thefollowing reliefs. 1. An amount of GH₵1,800.00 being an outstanding balance the first defendant oughttohave paid her afterabotched cassava transaction. 2. Costs 3. Anyotherordersthe courtmay deemfit. THECASE OF THE PLAINTIFF The plaintiff’s case is that she got to know the first defendant through the second defendant. The second defendant is the sonofthefirst defendant. That on 11/01/24 the first defendant came to her and proposed to sell cassava to her as she into the business of buying and selling cassava. Because it was in the dry season and that times cassava get rotten in the soil, she proposed to purchase the cassava in sack loads but the first defendant refused and insisted that she wanted to sell her entire cassava farm instead. The transaction did not go through three days later the first defendant asked the second defendant to call the plaintiff to come and uprootthecassava and buy same insack loads. It was agreed that the plaintiff would deposit an amount of GH₵3,000.00 so that after uprooting the cassava the number of sack load realised would be calculated and the necessary payment made. The first defendant insisted on collecting the GH₵3,000.00 because. She needed cash to pay the fees of her child. According to the customoftheir trade, twentyfull Sackloadsofcassava would cost GH₵4,400.00. 2|Page Whilst uprooting the cassava, it was realised that most had gotten rotten under the soil. Following this discovering the first defendant was promptly informed by the second defendant who acted as agent for his mother (first defendant herein). The first defendant therefore asked her own husband to visit the farm and ascertain things for himself. When the first defendant husband came to the farm and saw things for himself, he accordingly called his wife and informed her. The first defendant said they could go ahead and uproot the entire farm any sack loads they got would be paid for. After uprooting the entire farm they got only five sack loads of cassava. The plaintiff went to the first defendant so they could strike the balance and the necessary refunds made but the first defendant got furious and said they should go and replant the uprooted cassava since she was not willing to make any refunds. This brought in the police and it was agreed that the first defendant would refund allamount ofGH₵1,800.00tothe plaintiffbut she refused hence this action. THECASE OF THE FIRSTDEFENDANT The first defendant denied ever having any business dealings with the plaintiff she claim soldherclaimed that she sold her cassava farmtooneTwumwaa ofBerekum. To unravel this mystery, the court subponded the said Afia Twumawaa who testified ascourt witnesson18/03/25. Witness averred that the first defendant’s husband once came to inform her that theyhad cassava tosell. Aftervisited the farmand uprooting first two cassava sticks, 3|Page she realised that it would not help her so she did not go into any business negotiations with the first and left. A few weeks thereafter the first defendant approached her and informed her that the plaintiff had instituted action in court against her in respect of the cassava. She did not purchase and that she wanted her to testify for her. The court witness said she rejected the invitation to testify. The first defendant furiously threatened to invoke curses on her for refused to testify for her, incourttwo issues. ISSUESFOR DETERMINATION The first issue for determinations is whether or not the first defendant had any business transactionwiththe plaintiff. The second issue iswhether ornot the1stdefendant owes theplaintiff. Before a deal with issues supra, I shall briefly touch on the burden of proof. In civil matters the party who raises issues in his writ, pleadings or evidence essential to the success of his case assumes the burden of proof. See Section 11(1) and 4 of NRCD 323and Bank of W/Africa vrs Ackun (1963)I GLR176. The second defendant who is the son of the first defendant averred that he acted as agent for her mother by leading the plaintiff to the cassava farm to uproot the cassava. The second defendant was also actively involved in the transaction from beginning to the end I have no reason not to believe him I find it difficult to disbelieve awitness who testifies against his ownmotherin court. 4|Page The witness who was subponded to testify denied buy any cassava from the first defendant. I have found as a fact that the first defendant sold her cassava farm to the plaintiff. It is also a fact that the first defendant took an amount of GH₵3,000.00 from the plaintiff and other theharvest,only five sack loadsofcassava were had. From all intents and proposes the first defendant know very well that most of her cassava had rotten in the soil that was why she insisted on being paid GH₵3,000.00 beforethe Plaintiff could uprootthe cassava. Ihereby entered judgmentagainst the first defendant as follows. 1. The first defendant is ordered to paid all amount of GH₵1,800.00 being balanceduetothe plaintiff. 2. Since the plaintiff took a loan from Quick credit micro finance to invest in her business and must have being saving same, the first defendant will pay 30% interest on thejudgments debt. 3. CostsofGH₵1,000.00for plaintiff. ……………………….. H/WAUGUSTINE AKUSA-AM (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) 5|Page